A
letter by the Ecumenical Patriarch addressed to the
Archbishop of Athens has been made public, in which
the Patriarch is vigorously protesting against the
composition and circulation of the "Confession
of Faith against Ecumenism", which has been
endorsed by a host of laypeople and clergymen, and
by several Hierarchs.

His Holiness has not commented on the
essence of the "Confession";
instead, he has placed the blame on the editors and all
those who signed it, because:

1. In
the "Confession"
it apparently
says -according to the Ecumenical Patriarch-
that «all those
who communicate with the heterodox....automatically place
themselves outside the Church».

2.those
who refuse the inter-Christian dialogue are opposing «conciliar
decisions of all the Orthodox Churches without
exception, including our Most Holy Church of Greece,
as per the unanimous decision of the 3rd Pre-conciliar
Pan-Orthodox Conference (1986)».

Á.
Except that :

1.Nowhere
in the
text proper of the "Confession"
does it say: «all
those
who communicate with the heterodox» are
culpable, but rather, it refers to those who have
accepted and who preach in practice and in word the
"pan-heresy" (in the words of fr. Justin Popovitch)
of Ecumenism! To quote :

"This
pan-heresy has been accepted by many
Orthodox patriarchs, archbishops,
bishops, clergymen, monks and laity.
They teach it, «barefacedly»;
they apply it and impose it in practice,
communing with heretics in every possible manner
- with common prayers, with exchanges of visits,
with pastoral collaborations - thus essentially placing themselves outside the
Church."

Nowhere does the "Confession"
say that even the ecumenists «automatically place
themselves
outside the Church», as the Patriarch asserts in
His letter!
Quite obviously, the composers of the "Confession",
being the well-versed theologians that they are,
are fully aware that there is no such thing as an "automatic"
exit from the Church !

There is a vast
difference in meaning, between the words "automatically"
and "essentially"
!

2.
The Patriarch states that «all the Orthodox
Churches have approved communications with the heterodox, through conciliar
decisions»
and consequently, all those whocriticize what goes on in the Dialogue are
supposedly opposing Pan-Orthodox decisions!

We beg to be allowed -
with all due respect to the Patriarch of our
Nation - to also pose the following questions
publicly (because privately sent letters are not
responded to, by the pertinent officials of the
Throne):

a.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that abolished the Encyclical by the
Patriarch Athenagoras' Synod of the Ecumenical
Patriarchate, in which common prayer had been
outrightly condemned as "opposing the sacred canons
and blunting the confessional sensitivity of the
Orthodox?" Is today's attitude - by some - in
accordance with this Encyclical by the Sacred Synod
of the Patriarchate, on the matter of common prayer?

b.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
gave permission to the Pope to not merely attend,
but to almost actively participate in a Patriarchal
Divine Liturgy, dressed in his official vestments?

c.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
obligated the Ecumenical Patriarch to give and
receive the liturgical embrace with the Pope during
the Divine Eucharist of the Throne's Celebration in
2006?

d.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that gave the Pope permission to pray on
behalf of the Orthodox fold during the Lord's Prayer
in (may I be permitted to say) the most official of
Divine Liturgies in the Patriarchal Temple?

e.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
had ever relinquished the Bema of the Patriarchal
Temple so that the papal primacy could be
barefacedly preached there? Imagine, fallacy
being preached from that very same Bema of Saints
Alexander, Gregory, Chrysostom, Photios, Filotheos!Isn't that sacrilege?

f.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision» was it, that decided the
heresy-persisting Pope should be lauded as "the
venerable Pastor and President" - inside the very
Patriarchal Temple itself, and in the presence of
the Patriarch, no less?

g.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that permitted the lauding of the Papist
heresy as "a venerable Church, the See of Peter",
at the First Throne of Constantinople, and in fact
inside the very Patriarchal Temple itself, and in
the presence of the Patriarch?

h.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that abolished the 16 Sacred Canons (by Holy
Fathers,
Local and Ecumenical Synods), and ruled that
common prayers with heretics thereafter would no
longer constitute a canonical misdemeanor?

i.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that had approved the drafting of
regulations for "confessional" or
"inter-confessional" common prayer during the
meetings of the World Council of Churches?

k.Which «Pan-Orthodox
decision»
was it, that empowered the Ecumenical Patriarch to
offer a Holy Chalice as a gift to the Uniate Archbishop of
Athens? Wasn't Unia outrightly condemned, in "conciliar
decisions of all the Orthodox Churches, without
exception [...] as is the unanimous decision of the
3rd Pre-Conciliar, Pan-Orthodox Conference (1986)"?
Why are these unanimously decided, Pan-Orthodox
rulings so blatantly disregarded, when they have
specifically condemned Unia? Why the
selective use of "Pan-Orthodox decisions"?

Furthermore :

I.Didn't
our Patriarch stop to think when offering that Holy
Chalice as a gift to the Uniate Archbishop, what a
bitter cup it was for the Church of Greece, but also
for the other Orthodox Churches, who even today are
sighing under the methodical plans of Unia?
How will this act by our Patriarch resound in those
long-suffering - and still suffering - from Unia
brethren of ours in Eastern Europe but also in the
Middle East? Isn't that provoking Pan-Orthodox
unity?

II. How
would our Patriarch feel, if the Archbishop of
Athens were to offer a Holy
Chalice as a gift to "father Efthym"
? (My apologies, for the cruel parallel...)

Historical
note on "father Efthym":

The
Turkish authorities supported with
every means the establishment, in
September 1923, of the so-called
‘Turkish Orthodox Church’, which was
founded by father Efthym
Karahisarides Erenerol, a priest
from Keskin, Anatolia, who was the
blind instrument of Mustafa Kemal
Atatürk, head of the Young Turks.
"father Efthym" is the Head of this
Turkish, schismatic, Nationalist
Orthodox Church, whose aim it is to
usurp the authority of the
Patriarchate in the Turkish domain,
and to subjugate the Orthodox in
Turkey to the nationalist designs of
the State. In other words, something
equivalent to the usurping of
Orthodoxy by the Papist Uniates.

And
questions like these have no end
to them.... but they also
have no answers...

The above
are just a small reminder, for the debunking of the excuse of
the alleged "Pan-Orthodox decisions" ! If
only those who lead the dialogue nowadays respected and upheld all of the Pan-Orthodox
decisions! All of them, and not selectively!
Because, there has never been a Pan-Orthodox Synod
that has altered Orthodox Ecclesiology, or abolished
Sacred Canons that have been validated by three
Ecumenical Synods, or given the right to
breach ecclesiastic tradition and order - which is
what has been frequently happening nowadays in the space of
Ecumenism. If that ever did happen, then any Synod
whatsoever - even a "Pan-Orthodox" one - would be
negating itself and turned into a "convention of
the lawless" and a "synagogue of wicked ones".
Besides, the "ecumenical" or "robber" character of a
synod is not determined by the number and the
representation of those participating in it, but
chiefly by the decisions that it arrives at!

Â.
Consequently, all those who accuse the ones
exercising criticism (on the matter of the
dialogues) - of supposedly being opposed to the
dialogues per se - well, unless they are slandering
by deliberately distorting reality, they are making
a huge mistake!

Because
NO! WE ARE NOT AGAINST THE
DIALOGUE! There cannot be a Christian who
refuses any dialogue. Because Christ Himself
conversed with sinners. However, we need to be
careful, because it was Christ Himself Who had also
refused a dialogue: He had refused to talk, even
when provoked: He had refused a dialogue with
Pilate, the High Priests of the Great Sanhedrin, and
with King Herod!

We therefore agree
to dialogues,
in the manner that our Lord did!

But we also oppose dialogues, in the
manner that our Lord did: when
certain prerequisites that have been clearly defined
by ecclesiastic Tradition are not fulfilled.

Therefore, we are against the dialogue (the "useless
game", according to the words of its 20-year-long
co-Chairman, the Archbishop Stylianos of Australia),
the way it is being conducted nowadays. I will
indicatively mention three characteristic points only:

1.
The systematic disregard for ecclesiastic tradition,
with the ever-increasing and intensified common
prayers! We have gone beyond ordinary common
prayers, and have rapidly moved on to common
officiating (incomplete, for the time being).... And
what is even worse: we are striving to impose our
iniquity as a law of God (refer to the opinion of
Pheidas regarding common prayer)!

2. Certain
«professionals» (in the words of prof.Veltsis) of
the dialogue are deciding in absentia of the people
of God (laity and clergy), and even in absentia
of the very Synods of the Autocephalous Churches.

For
example: SixAutocephalous Churches - in other words,
almost half of Orthodoxy! - the Patriarchate of
Jerusalem, the Church of Serbia, Bulgaria, Georgia,
Greece, Czech Republic and Slovakia - did not participate, and had
synodically condemned the
Balamand Statement
(7th meeting of the Joint Commission, 1993), as
entirely unacceptable from the Orthodox point of
view, foreign to Orthodox Tradition, and
contrary to the decisions
of Pan-Orthodox Conferences (refer to the
letter dated 8-12-1994 by the Holy Synod of the
Church of Greece addressed to Patriarch
Bartholomew)! And
yet, none of the «professionals» concerned themselves with these
facts and the dialogue continues, with the
Orthodox representatives regarding this statement as
valid and a basis for discussions on the course of
the dialogue!

Is this attitude reminiscent of
respect towards the Synods of six Autocephalous
Churches? Does this behaviour perhaps display
a respect for pan-Orthodox unity?

3.
In Pan-Orthodox decisions, Unia is condemned repeatedly. And yet,
participating in the dialogue are....Uniates! Where, therefore, is
there a respect towards the Pan-Orthodox decisions, in the dialogue as
conducted today?

Who,
therefore, is showing disregard towards the Pan-Orthodox decisions?
Those who are exercising criticism with a theological basis, or
perhaps those who are
actively involved in a "useless game"?

1.No-one
should worry, or be alarmed, because nobody can be "unchurched" with
signatures! Regardless how many signatures by the laity and clergy and
Hierarchs are collected!

2.But
no-one should rest assured either, that with their signatures they are
able to "unchurch" others and thus be done with their protesting! Any
silencing whatsoever of the others' opinion cannot be an acceptable
thing - not in the Church, and not in our society!

3.Each
one of us must however remain alert, because there is the inherent risk
of "unchurching" himself - not "automatically" (!) but "essentially", on
account of his own utterings and attitude. An official case of "unchurching"
may delay, or may not even manifest itself in this lifetime... but what
about in the other life?

Let's not forget the case of Saint Maximus the
Confessor: a simple monk who
fought for the faith and our Church's tradition, against practically the
entire Pentarchy (the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and
Antioch) - the "official" "Church" - which had subjugated itself to
heresy! He didn't "unchurch" a single one of them; quite the
opposite: he was "unchurched", by the powerful (in this world)
Patriarchs etc., and he died in exile! But along came a (post
mortem) 6th Ecumenical Synod, which based itself on the theology of that
simple monk, Maximus, and in fact vindicated
that simple monk, and furthermore defrocked, condemned and anathematized
SEVEN PATRIARCHS and other Bishops, AS HERETICS!

D.At
the end of His letter, the Ecumenical Patriarch asks of the Archbishop
of Athens and his attending "honourable Hierarchy to take an
official stance,
the soonest, opposite this "Confession
of Faith against Ecumenism"
and those of the clergy who had endorsed it!"

It is truly worth wondering why
the Ecumenical Patriarch and His attending Synod are asking the Church
of Greece to take a stance, and why they themselves did not tackle "those
of the clergy who had endorsed it",
the way he had done with the ever-memorable Christodoulos in the past... It
would surely have circumvented possible problems of unity in our
Hierarchy!

· Undoubtedly,
it is especially sad when a Father confronts the agony of his children
as if it were a hostile move, and places himself "opposite
[...] those of the clergy" - in other
words, his own children!

· It is
especially sad, when the Father heads a dialogue outside his own home,
with all the neighbors, near and far, but systematically refuses to talk
to his own children about their justified - or even unjustified -
reservations!

·It
is especially sad, when he conducts a "Theological Dialogue" with the
heterodox, but refuses to conduct a theological dialogue with His own,
co-believing, co-deacons in the Body of Christ!

·It
is especially sad, when he asks for measures "opposite"
his children - I wonder, what measures would they be?
Perhaps preventive censorship and a
silencing of other opinions? Where is this going ?

However, woe betide the father who disregards the cry
of agony by his children. He only manages to undermine his paternal
authority in their conscience.... And let's not overlook the fact that
paternal authority cannot be imposed by putting a gag on critique; it
can only be inspired, even in "unruly" children. If this applies in
biological paternity, how much more so, in spiritual paternity!

At any rate, let it be made absolutely clear to
everyone that with the Hierarchs, the Hagiorites and the other Abbots
with their Brotherhoods, as well as all the other clergymen and
monastics and laity, from the many Orthodox Churches who, before God and
our conscience, are endorsing the "Confession
of Faith against Ecumenism",
we are all merely expressing our sorrow and our disagreement with the
systematic disregard for our ecclesiastic tradition, as displayed in the
space of Ecumenism. We are, and we shall
remain, members of our Church, no matter what happens! Even if embittered by our Fathers and denied our filial status on account of
their attitude, we will continue to be members of our Orthodox Church!

llllllllllllllll

OODE Note:
The complete text of the letter by the Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew to the Archbishop of Athens
Hieronymos is as follows:

«Your
Beatitude, Archbishop of Athens and
All Greece, a beloved and dearest
in-Christ brother and co-celebrant
of our Mediocrity, Mr. Hieronymos,
Chairman of the Holy Synod of the
Church of Greece, We greet Your
venerable Beatitude as a brother in
Christ, addressing you with great
pleasure.

A script titled
«Confession
of Faith»
has come to the attention of the
Ecumenical Patriarchate, signed by
clergymen, monks, as well as certain
laypeople, among whom are also
certain Metropolitans of the
Autocephalous Church of Greece,
through which persons the division
is being
attempted of the Orthodox
faithful, into "confessors of the
Orthodox faith" , and into something
like "lowest bidders"
(turncoats) if they do not
accept the positions of the said
text's composers.

On this matter, and with a synodic
opinion, We have been moved to
express to You the serious concern
of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, and
this, for the following reasons:

It is well known that for a long
time there exist and are being
cultivated - especially in the
territory
of the Church of Greece - certain
zealot trends, which are expressed
with sometimes acute and unfamiliar
polemics - against the ongoing
theological dialogues and contacts
of the Orthodox Church and the
heterodox. The Orthodox Church
has never of course obstructed or
censured the expressing of criticism
pertaining to the actions and the
decisions of the administrative
Church, which is why We have also
never protested about these trends,
even though, as We mentioned, they
have often been expressed in an
unfamiliar, fanatic and even
disrespectful manner. We would not
therefore have addressed You, if it
were merely a matter of criticism
such as that - albeit improper and
unfamiliar.

However, the instance of the said
«Confession»
presents certain
peculiarities, which have caused Us
concern, given that:

a)
This text is
self-titled «Confession
of Faith»
- as though comparable - or at any
rate parallel - to those by the Holy
and Ecumenical Synods, or to other
«Confessions»
that bear the names of persons such
as Peter Mogila, Dositheos of
Jerusalem, e.a.. But,
while the latter also bear a
Conciliar validation, this instance
of a «Confession»
bears no such
validation, and with its title
misleads a part of the faithful
people by appearing like a similar
«Confession».

b)
This «Confession»
asserts in a
paragraph that all those who
communicate with the heterodox and
pray together with them
automatically place themselves
outside the Church. This signifies
that all the Patriarchs and
remaining Primates of the Orthodox
Churches, along with their Holy
Synods, as participants in such
communications and dialogues, have
automatically placed themselves
outside the Church!!! Those
who have signed the «Confession»
have in this manner proclaimed all
of us as being outside the Church,
that is, as schismatics, and it is a
wonder that they have not yet
interrupted sacramental communion
with us, since we are - according to
them - «outside
the Church».
At any
rate, the seed of schism is inherent
in the aforementioned expressions of
the «Confession»,
and this should raise concern among
all the pastors of the Church.

c)
This concern is
intensified, on account of the fact
that the said «Confession»
is signed - among others - by
certain Metropolitans of the
Autocephalous Church of Greece, as
though the Confession (Creed) that
they were given during their
ordination was not enough for them.
We want to believe that the
signatory Hierarchs did this without
fully realizing that in this way
they are leading towards a schism
within the Orthodox Hierarchy, given
that all the Orthodox Churches have
approved communications with the
heterodox, through conciliar
decisions.

Because it is
inconceivable that these bishops,
with their signatures on the said
«Confession»
on the one hand are proclaiming that
all those who participate in
communications with the heterodox
«automatically
place themselves outside the Church»,
but in their
liturgical and their other life
regard themselves as being in
communion with them, and in fact
even commemorating their name during
the Divine Liturgy.

Your Beatitude,

Communications
with the heterodox, including the
theological dialogues with them, are
not the actions of certain Churches
or persons, but, as We said, they
are conciliar decisions of all the
Orthodox Churches, without
exception, including Your Most Holy
Church of Greece, as per the
unanimous decision of the 3rd
Pre-Conciliar Pan-Orthodox
Convention (1986) and the hereto
attached photocopies of the sent
agreements that pertain to the
content of our dialogue with the
Roman Catholic Church.

The ascertainment
that this detail has been forgotten
by the signatories of the said
«Confession»causes immense
grief. The Church of Greece,
by not condemning but instead
silently condoning the circulation
of texts appearing as a «Confession
of Faith»
- such as the one in question,
through which all participants in
the relations with the heterodox are
placed outside the Church and in
fact signed by bishops of Hers -
causes concern not only to Her
flock, but also to Her communion
with the remaining Orthodox
Churches.

We therefore ask
Your Beatitude and your attending
honorable Hierarchy to take an
official stance as soon as possible,
opposite this so-called «Confession
of Faith»
and those of the clergy who have
endorsed it, bearing in mind the
danger that this display of
tolerance harbors for the unity of
the Church, or, as it appears, the
encouraging of such divisive actions
by certain of Her bishops also.

Having announced
these things to Your Beatitude, We
also embrace You with a brotherly
kiss and remain, with very much love
in the Lord and special honour».